Civil Aviation Bill -  Standing Committee B

[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]

Civil Aviation Bill

New Clause 1 - Responsibility of airlines for health, welfare and well-being of passengers

‘After section 84 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) insert—
“84AResponsibility for health, welfare and well-being of passengers
(1)It shall be the responsibility of airlines to which this section applies, so far as is reasonably practicable, to protect and promote the health, welfare and well-being of their passengers.
(2)The general responsibility to protect and promote the health, welfare and well-being of passengers includes particular responsibilities—
(a)to seek to prevent the occurrence or unnecessary aggravation of any injury, illness or disease;
(b)for the mental and psychological health, welfare and well-being of passengers;
(c)for the provision and maintenance of equipment that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to the health, welfare and well-being of passengers;
(d)for the provision of such information, instruction. training and supervision to staff as is necessary to protect and promote the health, welfare and well-being of passengers; and
(e)for the provision of such information and instruction to passengers as is necessary to protect and promote their health, welfare and well being.
84BResponsibility for health, welfare and well-being of passengers: supplementary
(1)Subject to the provision of subsection (2) section 84A applies to—
(a)all carriers to whom the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague, 1955 (hereafter “the Convention”) applies by virtue of Schedule 1 to the Carriage by Air Act 1961 (hereafter “the 1961 Act”); and
(b)all carriers to whom Schedule 1 to the 1961 Act applied by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 10 of that Act (application to carriage by air not governed by Convention).
(2)Section 84A shall not apply to the carriage of members of the armed forces where—
(a)that carriage takes place in pursuance of a duty or a commitment as a member of the armed forces, and
(b)the whole capacity of the aircraft has been reserved for such carriage.
(3)In this section “members of the armed forces” means all persons within the meanings of the “regular services” or of the “reserve forces” given in section 127 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c.14) (interpretation).
84CResponsibility for health, welfare and well-being of passengers: liability
Where an airline to which section 84A has negligently failed to comply with the responsibility specified the airline shall be liable in respect of damages arising from such negligent failure.
84DResponsibility for health, welfare and well-being of passengers: amendments of the Carriage by Air Act 1961
(1)The 1961 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2)After section 1(1A) (Convention to have force of law), there shall be inserted—
“(1B)Where the provisions of the Convention conflict with the provisions of the Aviation Health Act 2003, the provisions of the Convention shall not have the force of law.
(3)In section 4(1) (limitation of liability), after the word “enforced”, there shall be inserted “other than proceedings in respect of a liability under section 4 of the Aviation Health Act 2003.”.’.—[John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I say what a privilege it is to be a member of a Committee chaired by you, Mr. O’Hara?
A first appearances, new clause 1 appears to contain complicated additions to the Civil Aviation Act 1982. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as it would introduce a relatively simple change in the law. It would include a number of new sections after section 84 of the 1982 Act. Proposed new section 84A covers responsibility for health, welfare and well-being of passengers, new section 84B deals with supplementary provisions to that responsibility, and liability is covered in new section 84C. Finally, and crucially, new section 84D proposes amendments to the Carriage by Air Act 1961.
New section 84A simply sets out a general duty of care for airlines and air carriers in relation to the health, welfare and psychological well-being of their passengers. The Committee might wonder why that is proposed. The reason is that, believe it or not, airlines currently have no duty of care for the health and welfare of their passengers. They have considerable duties of care for their passengers’ safety in relation to accidents caused by “events” on aircraft, the most obvious being an air crash, which can be pretty risky for airline passengers. However, they have no duty of care for their passengers’ health, and section 84A would place it on them.
I stress that there is nothing unusual about that general duty. It is exactly the same duty of care that any other passenger carriers have to bear. Whatever form of public transport someone travels by—ship, train, coach or even taxi—the carrier has an implicit duty of care for the health of their passenger. Rather bizarrely, since 1929 under article 17 of the Warsaw convention, airlines have no such responsibility.
One could not imagine a more contrived environment than an airline cabin. The air that passengers breath is controlled by the airlines: the ventilation, level of oxygen and its temperature. The food that passengers eat is controlled, as is where they sit, how they sit and, importantly for those of us who have travelled frequently in economy class, the amount of space they have to sit in. The airlines control the exercise that they can take—whether people can stand up and walk around on airlines—the amount of alcohol and water that they can drink, and what people eat on airlines. Indeed, there is a big issue about the salt content of airline food. The pressure in a standard aircraft in 2005 is equivalent to the air pressure 6,000ft above sea level.
My point is that all of that is controlled by the airlines, but they have no responsibility for their passengers’ health. That might sound counter-intuitive, but it is accurate. It is an anachronism that should be removed, and I believe that the Bill might be able to do that. New section 84B sets out the specific areas of responsibility for the health of airline passengers, new section 84C sets out responsibility for passengers and new section 84D sets out, crucially, the area of liability. However, it is important that the Minister and members of the Committee appreciate that, in placing a general duty on the airlines, we are not placing any penalties on them. We are not placing a general statutory duty on airlines and then saying that if they fail to deliver those responsibilities they will be fined or penalised by the state or by any privatised airport authorities.
The point is that airlines will be held to be liable if they fail in their duty to safeguard the health of their passengers. In other words, airline passengers or their families will still have to go into court, which is not an easy thing to do, and prove that the airlines were responsible for damage or injury to their health or, indeed, death, as we believe may be the case in many instances. The families will still have to have their day in court and argue that it was due to the actions of airlines—or indeed the failure to act and negligence—that their loved ones were killed, before the airline can be held liable or required to pay compensation for its actions or failure to act. The fact is that, in 2005, victims of air health incidents cannot even go to court to argue that the airlines are responsible for the damage to their health. That is an absurd anomaly. In the 21st century, when air travel is the fastest-growing mode of public transport in the world, when more than 60 million British passengers fly long haul out of this country every year, their health is not protected by the airlines that carry them.
 New section 84D amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961. It would override article 17 of the Warsaw convention. At the time when it was agreed, the Warsaw convention was a well thought out, well balanced piece of international legislation. Air travel was quite a novel activity; most countries wanted to promote it. Very few people participated in air travel and, at that time, it was quite a dangerous activity. In 1929, people were still flying in biplanes and taking great risks. There was no such thing as pressurised cabins. At that time, most advanced countries rightly wanted to promote and develop aviation and air travel, and so they introduced limited liabilities. The major concern at the time was safety—the number of air crashes and the airworthiness of aircraft. Health was not a factor in 1929; one was lucky to survive a flight in one piece, without worrying what the effect might be on one’s health at a later date.
Now, however, health is a critical issue, whereas safety is not. That is because of the effectiveness of much legislation governing the safety of air travel. In fact now, air travel is the safest mode of public transport. People are far less likely to be killed or injured as a result of flying in an aircraft than by riding  a bicycle or travelling in a car. It is a safe mode of transport but there is a growing body of evidence that it is an unhealthy mode of transport.
I speak in Parliament on behalf of the Victims of Air-Related Deep Vein Thrombosis Association. It supports me in my effort to amend the Bill, which it generally supports. We have lists of hundreds of victims of deep vein thrombosis. It is considered to be a major public health issue related to air travel. We do not know the full extent of the problem and we have never pretended to know. We do not know exactly how many people are dying or being seriously injured from this condition in Britain, let alone throughout the world, but there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence and indicative evidence.
The most recent piece of research was carried out by a medical research institute in New Zealand the year before last and published in The Lancet. It showed that as many as one in 100 of all air travellers who travel long haul, which is defined as longer than four hours, suffer not a blood clot but a deep vein thrombosis. We suspect that it is caused primarily by prolonged immobility on an aircraft, especially in cramped conditions, but other factors could be involved.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, research is about to be published by the World Health Organisation and a team of world experts led by Professor Fritz Rosendaal at Leiden university. It is about to show, probably finally and definitively, that there is a clear correlation between long-haul air travel and the incidence of thrombosis. We look forward to that research which is financed primarily by the Department for Transport. It will be an important milestone in the protection of the health of air travellers.
This Bill also protects the health of air travellers. That is why I warmly welcome and endorse clause 7. I congratulate the Minister, her Department and the Government on bringing this forward. It is relevant to my new clause. It places a duty of care on the Secretary of State for Transport to safeguard and protect the health of airline passengers. It places a modest levy on the airlines to finance the running of the aviation health unit at CAA Gatwick which is the first in the world to provide information and support for air passengers, the Government and the airline industry. Crucially it extends the air navigation orders to cover health issues as opposed to safety issues.
When the Bill is passed in full, the CAA will be able to issue air navigation orders protecting the health of airline passengers. For the first time it will be able to cover things like ventilation in cabins. It will also be able to cover the seat pitch of the seating arrangements in airline cabins. The seat pitch is the distance between the front of one seat and the back of the seat in front. Those who travel low cost, long distance, with their knees up under their chin, will know exactly what we are talking about. One of the crucial reasons why that distance cannot be extended is that under air navigation orders it can be extended only for safety reasons, primarily for safe access to and egress from the aircraft in the event of an accident or an emergency.
Such orders cannot be issued for health reasons: in other words, when a person is cramped, they cannot move, their blood does not circulate properly and pools in their ankles. According to at least one eminent researcher in the field, Professor John Scurr, one in 10 people who travel on long-haul aircraft develop clots as a result of that pooling. However, the Government have been absolutely powerless to do anything whatever about that and will remain so until the Bill is enacted. I have tabled new clause 1 because the Secretary of State may end up responsible for providing advice, information and guidelines through the CAA about the health of airline passengers, but, believe it or not, airlines will have no responsibility whatever for the health of their passengers. That could, at some point in the future, result in a serious anomaly: in other words, the Government will have responsibility for aviation health—the first Government in the world to do so—but the airlines will not.
New clause 1 would change that and would place such responsibility on the airlines and allow passengers who are injured, or the relatives of passengers who are killed as a result, primarily, of deep vein thrombosis to pursue their case. Deep vein thrombosis is what concerns me, but without frightening members of the Committee there are a number of serious aviation health issues, particularly those that are of concern to airline pilots, one of them being toxic fumes entering the cockpit and affecting their consciousness, which would be of concern to anyone flying on an aeroplane, 33,000 ft up in the air half way across the Atlantic. There is a range of health issues. Crew are not covered by the normal safeguards in health and safety legislation, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, because of the outdated convention that was produced over 70 years ago.
It is a pleasure for me to speak to the new clause, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it in its entirety. If they are unable to do that, I should be interested to hear what the Government’s thinking is and what their aspirations are for future liabilities being placed on airlines. I am confident that, at the end of the day, as consumers realise the risks to their health and well-being that they take when they board an aircraft—because they are not insured through normal travel insurance when they board an aircraft against damage or injury to their health, or death—the passenger demand for the same protection that all other passengers enjoy will be unstoppable.
When people board an aircraft they see videos giving them advice on healthy living, telling them what to eat, not to drink too much, and to take regular exercise, but that is a relatively new phenomenon. That would never have been seen on an aircraft four years ago, before the launch of the DVT campaign. Among the families of victims of that condition, the reason for putting the new clause in the Bill was the publication of the excellent Select Committee on Science and  Technology report on aviation health. It was a well-balanced and well-thought-out research paper, which has resulted in that action. As I have said, I am delighted that clause 7 is in the Bill. I consider it a major step forward in the protection of British air travellers, and the Government should be proud of that.
I finish on a discordant note by expressing one concern. I believe that all Committee members have received a briefing paper on the Bill from Virgin Atlantic. In it, it refers to aviation health issues, and deep vein thrombosis in particular, as merely press scare stories. It also calls on the Government to withdraw the levy, which I think is outrageous because airlines have no liability. Airlines cannot both claim that there are no major health concerns regarding air travel and hide behind article 17 of the Warsaw convention, which prevents them from being held liable. With that unfortunate criticism of Virgin Atlantic, I commend new clause 1.

Julian Brazier: May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara? We have completed a large part of our proceedings, but I am sure that you will find it as interesting as Sir Nicholas did on Tuesday.
It is appropriate to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), whose campaign has certainly saved lives in past years. The scare stories that he has generated in the press have played a major role in the appearance of the videos that the British Air Transport Association tells us are now shown on all long-haul flights leaving the country and which have also undoubtedly saved lives. However, I am afraid that I will disappoint him by saying that I will not support the new clause. Work needs to be done on the topic, but it is already being done in three main areas, and I support that.
The first area of work is on the provision of information. There have been huge strides forward, and the quotation from BATA illustrates that. That has included in-flight videos and, if people want to buy them, an inflatable device to put under one’s feet to exercise on a long-haul flight. The second area is the research that the hon. Gentleman alluded to and which I strongly support. The airlines have half a point on payment, as it seems odd that only the airlines that come to Britain are paying. We will debate the European Aviation Safety Agency shortly, and I know that it is taking control of so many other things.

Adam Afriyie: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the measures were introduced on the British aviation industry, it would affect the running costs and make us less competitive across the globe? Of course health and safety is important, but would that not be one effect?

Julian Brazier: If I may, I will answer my hon. Friend’s point in a moment when I come to my objections to the clause.
The research taking place is very important. It would be impossible to fund it through the world aviation community, but I do not see why other airlines around the European Union should not  contribute or why EASA should not operate the levy. Of course the airlines must pay, but it seems hard that the burden is falling on ours when we are leading the field.

John Smith: I agree with the earlier comments: there is a danger that the system will place the British airline industry, which is the second biggest in the world, at a competitive disadvantage. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is outrageous that airlines internationally are exempt from a duty of care for their passengers? We need to start somewhere.

Julian Brazier: I accept that there is an anomaly here, by international agreement. On the issue of who funds research, it is a matter of relatively small sums. I was just making a point that they should be spread among the airlines. Clause 7, which we passed over lightly on Tuesday, has some uncontentious measures in it to expand that process.
I shall just briefly explain why I object to the new clause. The problem for all of us as parliamentarians when we legislate and regulate is that we get unforeseen consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) mentioned, and the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the possibility of uncompetitiveness, but my more immediate concern would be with passengers.
A very close relative of mine suffers from pooling in the ankles when travelling on aircraft. That relative has decided, despite knowing all the relevant information, that she still wants to take a long-distance holiday, aware of the fact that there are still risks even after she has followed all the advice. It would be absolutely impractical in a competitive airline market for airlines to pay for people to have medicals. If an all-embracing clause such as this went into law with—forgive me, we all desperately struggle to draft clauses and I am not being petty—general phrases like “reasonably practicable”, “unnecessary aggravation” or
“without risk to the health welfare and well-being of passengers”
that lawyers could have a go at, I can imagine what would happen. I envisage a situation where airline staff would pick on anyone who was fat or looked extremely old and tell them, “You’re a bad risk. I’m sorry but you cannot have an air ticket.” That would be my concern if such a measure were to be passed.
We have agreed on several issues and the Government are headed in the right direction. The airline industry is co-operating and I am impressed with the measures it has taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having initiated an excellent debate, will not press the matter to a vote.

John Pugh: It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara, and to debate such an interesting new clause.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan is clearly a lay expert in this field—far more so than me—and has campaigned vigorously for many years on this issue. He has certainly set me thinking very hard about the clause and all that pertains to it.
I have concerns similar to those of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in so far as some of the wording of the clause is in danger of exceeding what is probably the objective of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan. I am sure that he is trying to penalise legitimate carelessness on behalf of airlines. I am sure that he is not trying to encourage vexatious litigation against airlines and is trying to find a form of wording that will somehow encapsulate or achieve his aims.
I was a bit concerned about some of the wording, without being picky. The reference to “psychological welfare” takes us into a fairly grey area. The reference to promoting people’s health, not just protecting it, takes us into a somewhat nebulous area because one could take a view that promoting health is not a prime function of an airline. An airline’s job is to get someone safely from one airport to another.
I was, however, impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s claim that airlines are an exception in terms of the health protection that they offer to the people whom they carry. I wonder whether there are real reasons for that, and perhaps the Minister can help me on that point. Airlines do operate a different mode of transport, and some of the actual protection offered by bus operators and train operators is fairly skeletal. None the less, if the thrust of the Bill is to stop airline carriers taking unacceptable risks with passengers’ health, the new clause is laudable.
I concluded that although some risks are attendant on most things in life, some risks associated with airline travel are inevitable. If someone goes up high and has problems with their ears, their ears will pop. They cannot complain about that. If someone gets on a plane, knowing that it is a fairly confined environment, they cannot be surprised if they put themselves at greater risk of infection than they do in a Committee Room of the House of Commons. There are certain risks that are, clearly, known and cannot be calculated by the carrier in advance, and there are risks that we can reasonably expect passengers to be aware of. If I board a plane, knowing that I am of a nervous disposition and a poor traveller, I cannot complain about any psychological damage done to me during take-off and landing. Equally, people with heart conditions cannot complain if the excitement of the journey affects them in one way or another, knowing that they have that condition prior to getting on the plane.

John Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points, but the new clause is worded with those points in mind. The use of the general term “reasonably practicable” is intended to bring all the factors relating to the uniqueness of air travel as a mode of transport into consideration. The new clause would make airlines as responsible for their passengers as other passenger carriers are.

John Pugh: I fully accept that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve, but I doubt whether that would be the result of passing the new clause. He mentioned airline food. Most people recognise that airline food is not the healthiest menu on which to dine  regularly. We know that before we get on the plane. I dare say that someone who had reservations about the food could bring their own sandwiches. None the less, an airline is accountable if it serves food that is tainted—something that the passengers cannot be expected to know—and the passengers get thrombosis as a result.
There are risks that are inevitable, risks that are known and risks that one can reasonably expect a passenger to be aware of. The hon. Gentleman’s example of deep vein thrombosis falls outside those categories. It is not an inevitable risk: people can do something to prevent or reduce it. It is not an unknown risk: we know that certain passengers, statistically, will acquire it. It is not a condition, as far as I understand the matter—and I am no medical expert—that passengers can be expected to know they will acquire during a flight. Most people who suffer deep vein thrombosis on a plane suffer it only once, and unexpectedly. That is precisely the kind of risk that airlines should be obliged to tackle. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about deep vein thrombosis as the target for the new clause. I just wonder whether other matters will be caught in its train.
A couple of other small issues arise. The hon. Gentleman mentioned air circulation. There might come a day when recycled air is used to reduce a plane’s weight, thus increasing health risks. There must be a point at which we can gauge whether that is acceptable. I am not sure whether that point would be caught by the new clause. If, for example, an airline decided to recycle more air—for environmental reasons, so that it could carry less liquid oxygen—would it be seen to be taking greater risks that were acceptable?
I do not think that the clause mentions staff health. It is probably assumed that if one does not look after the health of staff one imperils the airline.

John Smith: That is true; the clause does not refer to the health of staff particularly, but the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to safeguard crew as well as passengers.

John Pugh: I wonder about the nature of that. I assume that it is consequential on making the airline safe. It does not make for a very safe airline if staff are unhealthy, with heart conditions and the like, and are imperilled by the process of flight itself. I thoroughly endorse the intention behind the amendment, and if the target is deep vein thrombosis, we should have a clause that endeavours to do something about that.
I wonder about the wording, but I warmly support, as we all do, the suggestion that the spreading of good practice must somehow be encouraged. That will be achieved by setting a good example, and by our talking about it and creating publicity, but perhaps there should also be some coercive force to ensure that good practice is more manifest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Karen Buck): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara. I am sure that you will guide us expeditiously through our proceedings today.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan on the consistent way in which he has championed this cause in Parliament. He has shown admirable dedication to it, and, as others have said, he brings a great deal of expertise to bear as a result of his campaigning history.
I am also grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind remarks this morning and on Second Reading, which acknowledge the Government’s lead on the issue, the progress that has been made in establishing the aviation health unit, and the funding of research into deep vein thrombosis.
I confirm the Government’s support for the goals of safer and healthier travel and better knowledge for airlines and passengers. Those goals have been discussed this morning, and examples of good practice have been acknowledged. There is no doubt that lives have been saved as a consequence of my hon. Friend’s campaigning work, for which he should take a bow. The Government believe, however, that the amendment would not be a useful way forward. Indeed, Opposition Members have given very good reasons why it would not work, and I shall not repeat those points.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there is the question of what the United Kingdom can do and what is required of us in international law. The liability of airlines for the death of, or injury to, passengers is covered by European Community and international law. It is not open to the UK to adopt national legislation that would conflict with our international or Community obligations.
The adoption of the Montreal convention in 1999, within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, concluded a period of intense, and at times difficult, negotiations to forge worldwide consensus from a range of divergent views. In many ways, the Warsaw convention had become out of date, and the Montreal convention is a significant step forward in consumer protection. It does, for example, greatly increase the financial liability of airlines in the event of accidents to passengers.
An accident, however, is external to the passenger. It is far from clear whether airlines can or should be held responsible for incidents in which passengers have pre-existing medical conditions. Opposition Members talked about the balance of risk, and questions of definition are apposite.
We are not aware of any published research that demonstrates a causal link between flying and deep vein thrombosis. My hon. Friend acknowledged the research, part-funded by the Government, which we hope to publish in August, which we hope will increase our understanding. We also hope to see international funding for another phase of research in order to establish what interventions might safely reduce the risk of DVT still further.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) asked why UK airlines should pay for health advice that might be of worldwide benefit, and suggested that that could place a competitiveness burden on them. The method of raising the funds for the aviation health unit established under the Bill is open to negotiation between the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines. Not only UK airlines but all airlines that operate to and from the UK could contribute to the funding, and the charge could fall in a more concentrated way on long-haul carriers, where the potential risk is greatest. The total amount is £200,000, which is very small and puts the matter into perspective. I doubt whether any airlines would regard that as significantly undermining their competitiveness.
The Bill will enable the CAA to take over from the Government the responsibility for funding the aviation health unit by means of a charge on the industry. It is an important step forward, and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the motion.

John Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her opening remarks and to other members of the Committee who have spoken. They have highlighted some of the issues in this important area.
It is true that the Montreal convention has greatly improved the protection of airline passengers. The request to include health was expressly refused at that convention by the airlines, as they did not want health included within liability. I admit that it would be extremely difficult, but not impossible, to change international conventions. Since 9/11, the Americans have introduced measures, not in the area of health, but in safety and anti-terrorism, that over-ride international conventions. I accept that it is difficult.
We had a good discussion on the balance of risk. It is a balance, and there are certain risks. People are susceptible to such conditions. My clause would not have made the airlines liable anyway, but the case would have had to have been proved in a court.

Adam Afriyie: I urge the hon. Gentleman to continue with his quest for improved health in the aviation industry. Perhaps he will explain, if he is not successful, what other actions he will be taking in the near future to push the issue. I should certainly like him to do so.

Edward O'Hara: Order. In responding to that question, I advise the hon. Gentleman not to stray too far from the specific subject under debate.

John Smith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to do so, but I shall avoid the temptation. Given my Welsh Chapel background, it could extend the Committee’s proceedings for some time.
The point that I want to make is that the balance of risk would be assessed in a court of law. It would not place an undue burden on airlines. All the factors would be taken into consideration. Finally, on the causal nature, the Minister is absolutely right that there is no causal link between flying and deep vein thrombosis, but there are no definitively established causal links between other public health areas, including smoking and lung cancer. The link is an  epidemiological link; we know that there is a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer, but the exact causal nature—people may be surprised to hear—is still debated. Establishing that causal link could take a long time, but establishing the probability will take less time. However, I acknowledge the Minister’s request, and am pleased that we have had this discussion. I am extremely pleased with clause 7 and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2 - Retention of data by national air traffic services

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall, in the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act, establish a duty for the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) to retain all details on air traffic movements, including aircraft type, operator, time of flight, route of origin and destination and all other relevant information, and keep said data for a period no less than six months.
(2)NATS shall be required under the provisions of subsection (1) to disclose all information thereby retained to members of the public, within a two week period commencing with the date of the inquiry.’. —[Mr. Brazier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause seeks to establish a point of contact for members of the public who are concerned about noise and movements that deviate from the established plans. The Bill does a great deal for designated airports, but relatively little for non-designated airports. There is currently little control over the expansion of flights at such airports. The Campaign to Protect Rural England makes the point that the Bill will not help to tackle the problem of increasing flights eroding tranquillity. It should include provision for penalties to be levied on low-flying aircraft. We are calling here for something much more modest: simply a point of contact. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made the point that even Members of Parliament get the run-around when they try to establish whether a flight was grossly away from its flight path, much too low, or flying at completely the wrong time of day. He said:
“If I want to know who is flying over Hungarton in Leicestershire at 4 am, where the plane was coming from and going to, what height it was at, what sort of plane it was and the airline to which it belonged, I would just get the run around. The Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Services and NEMA”—
the airport itself—
“all bounce responsibility from one to another, so none of us can readily establish the facts.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1053.]
 I am certain that the Minister will tell us that in its present form the clause is unworkable because NATS does not have all this data. The purpose of the probing amendment is to get to the bottom of who does. NATS appears to hold data for flights when they are not in the  immediate environs of airports. The non-designated airports hold the data for their own airports. I am not quite clear who holds the data for people coming into designated airports, particularly those around London.
The point that my hon. Friend made on behalf of his constituents around NEMA applies to a small number of my constituents who are close to Manston and many other people close to non-designated airports. Let me give an example from Mr. Steve Charlish, who heads DEMAND, the NEMA pressure group. In a letter to NEMA dated 4 July he wrote:
“The flight I am complaining about was at 0240 hours (local time) on Saturday 2nd July 2005 in the morning over my home at Kings Norton. The noise was similar to a low-level military fighter jet transit it was very loud and it had passed by in a matter of some seconds.”
It is possible that it was an emergency flight.
As we get more and more flights and as we might lose the night caps and more and more planes fly at night, it becomes ever more important that there is some redress for the public, either directly or through their MPs, although most of us are reluctant to increase our postbag. A central point is needed that people can go to if they believe that flights into an airport are regularly abusing the system and not abiding by the schedules. Under the present arrangements, if even my hon. Friend, who is one of the most energetic people I know, is unable to find out the details about a particular flight, one can imagine what it is like for an elderly lady who has been woken up for the third night running.
My hon. Friend said that he wrote to the then Minister last year to ask whether we could establish a single focal point to respond to inquiries designed to ascertain facts such as what plane was where and when. The Minister undertook to do so but wrote to me just before the election to say that she could not do so after all. Residents affected by night flights thus had the injury of nuisance compounded by the insult of bureaucratic abuse. In an overcrowded country with increasingly crowded airspace, we need a method of redress for the ordinary member of the public to discover when the flight paths are being abused and when ordinary individuals are suffering as a result. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

John Pugh: On Second Reading, a number of Opposition Members said that they had regularly sought information but had not been able to find where it resided, even though it was obviously somewhere in the system. Where there are thought to be breaches of, for example, air traffic orders there is an obligation under freedom of information legislation to place the information fairly promptly in the public domain. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the general thrust of subsection (1). However, I wonder whether subsection (2) is not drafted too widely. Some test or hurdle ought to be set, so that people who want information have to state what their purposes are. Otherwise, it will become a plane spotters’ charter—anybody could ask for any information at any time.  There are people in the country with a mania for collecting information who will use the process to no good effect. Equally, there are those with legitimate concerns who need information before they take further action.

Julian Brazier: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the drafting. This is designed as a probing amendment. That is why, although I am always reluctant to make the MP the gamekeeper, because of the consequences that that has for all of us, one very easy way of filtering to a small number of specifics is to do what we do with the ombudsman: that is, given that it is expensive to look back over radar tapes, to make the Member of Parliament the gatekeeper.

John Pugh: I am not sure that an ombudsman is necessarily the most elegant solution. Perhaps there should be some sort of formal consultation body for non-designated airports through which inquiries could be filtered and assessed, with that proviso. I have no objection to the probing nature of the new clause, or its thrust.

Karen Buck: I start by expressing an enormous amount of sympathy for individuals who are disturbed in the middle of the night by loud noises, which they think are made by aircraft that are off course. As Members of Parliament, we are constantly asked to take up issues of that kind—they vary according to where we live—and it is extremely exasperating if we are unable to pin down the cause and, if there is a question of liability, to hold people to account.
Having said that, a number of balances have to be struck in respect of the issues, including allowing for our extreme difficulty in relying upon the kind of information that is often presented to us by constituents.

Adam Afriyie: I have had a meeting with Janice Kong of BAA, who told me that there is a scheme for Gatwick airport whereby members of the public can go to a website and look at the flight paths and information on incoming and outgoing flights. They can then, if they wish, visit the operations room and look at background data. Will the Minister look at what is going on, and encourage other airport authorities to introduce similar schemes?

Karen Buck: I shall be interested to know more about that. We should, of course, encourage good practice at airports, spread that and ensure that the airports do everything possible to address the legitimate concerns of our constituents. For reasons that have been mentioned, I fear that the amendment will not take us forward satisfactorily by providing the kind of option for redress that the hon. Member for Canterbury has outlined.
The effect of the new clause would be to place an additional regulatory burden on NATS, in terms of the retention of flight data for flights operating in controlled airspace. One of the unintended consequences of the drafting would be that that would not be imposed on other air traffic service providers. In  the UK, NATS is responsible for providing en-route air traffic control services, en-route flights being those in corridors of 5,000 ft to 24,500 ft and 20 miles from the airports of arrival and departure. However, at airports where air traffic control is provided by a local provider, NATS operates in a competitive market for air traffic control, and it holds the contract at only 14 airports. There is an issue in such cases about where liability would lie.
Secondly, NATS and other air traffic control providers are responsible for providing an ATC service for controlled airspace—that is, airspace made up of terminal control areas surrounding the major airports and the airways that links those control areas. They may retain radar records for 30 days to facilitate the investigation of incidents.
However, flights in uncontrolled airspace are not compelled to receive an air traffic control service, nor are they required to notify the flight for the purpose of receiving permission to fly in such airspace. Consequently, flight data is often not available for such flights.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to require NATS alone to release information within two weeks of an inquiry being made is more onerous than the current freedom of information regime, which requires disclosure within 20 days.
There are, therefore, a number of practical difficulties, although I have considerable sympathy with the problem, and would wish to see everything possible done to ensure that individuals have some form of redress. Promotion of best practice has to be the best way forward, within the general context of the noise measures that are proposed in the Bill.

Julian Brazier: We have had a good debate. I particularly welcome the comments made about best practice at Gatwick. I think it is likely that my hon. Friends and I will seek to return to the matter on Report, having established some aspects of it in the debate. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 - Reduction of noise targets

‘The Secretary of State shall review no less than every 5 years, the maximum noise limits on aircraft taking off from designated airports and shall take account of the target of reducing the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50% by 2020 compared to 2000.’. —[Mr. Brazier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7 - Consultative Committees

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, establish a system for the independent monitoring of consultative committees established under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16), to ensure—
(a)that Department of Transport guidelines on consultative committees are produced, pursuant to section 35 of the 1982 Act,
(b)fair representation of the full range of local interests, providing that does not make the committee of a size that it precludes it from functioning effectively, and
(c)that the appointment of the chairman and secretary of the committee are sufficiently independent.’. —[Mr. Brazier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Brazier: When we debated new clause 4, I commented that it and new clause 7 are almost identical. I do not see any real reason to detain the Committee further on the matter. The issue of consultative committees at airports is important; there is genuine and legitimate concern about it. In our earlier sitting we discussed the issue at Coventry. However, I see little point in repeating that debate.

New Clause 8 - Duty to report on the transfer of powers from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

‘After section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) insert—
“61ADuty to report on the transfer of powers from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
(1)The Secretary of State shall make a report on the transfer of responsibilities, in respect of air safety, from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
(2)The Secretary of State shall report under subsection (1) within twelve months of the passing of this Act.
(3)The Secretary of State shall produce four more reports, at twelve month intervals, following the publication of the report produced pursuant to subsection (2).
(4)A report produced under this section shall set out—
(a)the matters in respect of air safety for which EASA has responsibility at that time,
(b)which, if any, of EASA’s responsibilities have been transferred to the CAA during the previous twelve month period,
(c)details of the number of staff employed by EASA and the CAA responsible for certificates of airworthiness, and their relevant qualifications, and
(d)any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks relevant.
(5)The Secretary of State shall publish each report produced under this section in such manner as he thinks fit.”.’.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Julian Brazier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
By seeking to get the Government to report on the issue, I shall enable the Committee to have a short discussion on the transfer of powers from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency, and the impact that that is having in a whole range of ways on aviation and industries related to aviation.
I want to make two points in that area. I have no objection in principle to the idea that some of the Civil Aviation Authority’s duties have gone to its European equivalent. Airspace becomes increasingly crowded, and we move a long way in a short space of time. That logic is clear, and we are not discussing any principle. What I am deeply concerned about is the practical effect of what is happening.
The first of the two points that I want to make is profoundly important. In our earlier debate, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan spoke about the health of passengers; this point concerns the safety of passengers. The system for the provision of certificates of airworthiness has been a cornerstone of aviation safety for generations. It is a system that requires the services of a relatively small body of very highly skilled people whose skills are extremely marketable. The aircraft skills involved are in short supply, and those with them are highly employable.
When the responsibility for airworthiness certificates was moved from the CAA to EASA, EASA had one employee. That was not a problem per se, as it temporarily pushed the responsibility back to the CAA and its counterparts in France and elsewhere to carry on the work as before. The new clause includes a provision on the need to report on the numbers of employees because I am told that the position is almost critical. EASA has managed to attract a number of those key skilled people, and the British certification work is now split between Cologne, where EASA is located, and the CAA, which still employs about 100 such skilled people.
I need hardly tell the Committee how important the activity is. However, I understand that, because it is clear to the people working for the CAA that they have no long-term future in the CAA—the authority is running the activity down as it transfers to EASA—they are finding other jobs and leaving. After President Chirac’s rude comments about England and Finland, and the contribution that they may or may not have made to yesterday’s magnificent result, I must phrase my next sentence very carefully. As someone who spent many years of his childhood in Germany, I have nothing against Cologne, but the plain fact is that Cologne has not proved an attractive place for people with such precious aviation skills, the bulk of them English and French. I understand that there is a similar problem in France, as French mechanics are equally reluctant to work in Cologne.
I do not wish to scaremonger or suggest that large numbers of aircraft will drop out of the sky tomorrow, but there is a major problem. We cannot continue with a situation in which the CAA’s base is declining and EASA, although it is expanding and has more than 100 employees in this area—the Minister may have more  up-to-date data—is frail and there are question marks over the competence of some of the people whom it has managed to recruit. That is an example of a potentially good idea at a strategic level turning into a sad story, as has often happened in the EU, after a silly location is chosen for a new body and the indications are that it is not competent to take on the work.
I want briefly to mention my second concern—my first is obviously the overriding one, as passenger safety is at stake. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has been working on behalf of a company in his constituency on something that again highlights the nonsense that we have got into with the partial transfer of powers from the CAA to EASA. The local company in question is a small firm in Oswestry run by the famous Swedish balloonist Per Lindstrand. It operates balloons that can be winched up and down. I have rather ugly memories of those because my parachuting course started on such a balloon and I found it deeply frightening. The balloons produced by the company that I am talking about are used, however, mostly for spectator activity.
Because the balloon is winched up and down it is deemed to be an aviation product. After the transfer of powers began, Mr. Lindstrand approached the Civil Aviation Authority, which took £48,000 from him. After that, he was dealing with EASA, which initially would not allow the products to be sold in the EU at all, because of a bureaucratic anomaly relating to the certification of the winch that hauls the balloons up and down. Meanwhile, a French rival operating an almost identical product was immediately certified. I pay tribute to the work of the journalist Christopher Booker in exposing all this, and in supporting my hon. Friend.
The EASA certification director eventually signed the air-worthiness certificate for Lindstrand’s aerostats, including the winch, and he could re-enter the market. However, immediately, the CAA, which still has some responsibilities in the area, came up with a new problem. He had to get design organisation approval for the makers of the winch and the software that controls it. It is now necessary to show that the two firms responsible for the winch were competent to build a safe product, even though they had already demonstrated that they were by contributing to a product that had, after a long and expensive process, been certified safe. The same applies to the computer firm that designed the software. It now emerges that the new rules, with that curious and muddled split of responsibilities, have placed as many as 85 specialist UK firms in a similar predicament.
I do not want to develop the point further. I have made it as strongly as I need to. However, I remind the Committee that, meanwhile, the French product, which is almost identical but, I understand, has a genuine safety problem with its winch, has enjoyed problem-free certification during the entire relevant period, under the split of responsibilities in France between their authority and EASA. I do not know  whether the French have 85 companies with similar potential problems, but I have no doubt that they will all be smoothed carefully.
The Minister must realise that it is not the action of drooling extreme Europhobes to call to account moves towards Europeanisation on grounds of practice. The Conservative party has no objection in principle to what was intended; for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, one can see why it makes sense. However, both the examples that I have given make it clear that the transfer is not working. It potentially endangers passengers and puts British firms at a severe competitive disadvantage.
I am certain that the Minister could spend 10 minutes describing how burdensome it would be to produce the reports. She, I and the Committee know that the calling for a report would be a device to enable the debate to take place, because the Civil Aviation Bill contains an extraordinary gap, in that it says nothing about the transfer of powers. The aim of the new clause is to provoke the debate and have the Government provide answers on it—not, of course, to obtain a set of burdensome reports.

Karen Buck: As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, there is no issue in principle about the transfer. Indeed, the annual report of the CAA confirmed that industry and the Government welcomed the proposal, and the CAA was keen to support an initiative that would provide harmonised and legally binding aviation standards in Europe. There is no problem in principle.
The hon. Gentleman seeks assurances that the transfer is proceeding smoothly. I remind him that we are at a very early stage. Given the scale and complexity of the process across Europe—I believe that it began in late 2003—it is fair to say that there are some teething difficulties. The United Kingdom deputy chairman of the management board is leading a joint agency and national aviation authority working group. That has concluded that, on manpower, there are a number of planning risks and uncertainties that require rigorous and continuous monitoring. He has made a number of recommendations to ensure that proper management and governance processes are put in place to address those, and the management board has accepted them.
The CAA is actively involved in that work, and will continue to be involved in the ongoing work of ensuring effective manpower planning and in addressing other issues affecting the agency and national civil aviation authority interface as they arise.
I can also reassure the hon. Gentleman on scrutiny. There are still many opportunities to ensure that points are scrutinised. The Secretary of State has a very clear duty—laid down in section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—to promote aviation safety. The establishment of EASA does not detract from that duty, and there are many well established parliamentary processes by which hon. Members can ask the Secretary of State how he is performing it. They can ask him parliamentary questions, call for debates in the House or in the Select Committee on Transport or can hold an inquiry and, because the development  of EASA involves European Union legislation, the European scrutiny committees can examine and, if necessary, debate the measures.
I am confident that all necessary measures are in place to ensure that progress is properly monitored and that the manpower issues are being properly scrutinised to ensure that the transfer is proceeding smoothly. The level of anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not backed up by the facts. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Julian Brazier: I am really not satisfied with that answer. The amendment was a probing measure and the requirement for reports a device. Let me make three points. The Minister referred to scrutiny. I did not mention scrutiny at all; that is not the issue. The issue is what happens in reality. Politicians on committees asking questions are not going to save lives on aeroplanes that are unsafe. What saves lives on aeroplanes is competent technicians examining them.
The second point concerns the Minister’s response to the main thrust of my speech, in which she said that manpower planning is ongoing, and that the CAA is assisting in close liaison. My informal information from the CAA is that it does not enjoy the same level of confidence as the Minister about that. It is not a matter of whether it is early days; if those people find well paid jobs elsewhere, they cannot be got back. There is a relatively small number of them in the European aviation industry, most of whom are English and French and do not want to live in Cologne. They are drifting away. It is difficult for the CAA to employ new people, so the fact is that there is a manpower problem. Manpower planning will help, but the numbers are not being addressed and the problem is developing fast.
My third and last point is that the Minister did not make a strong case for the transfer of powers, but suggested in a sentence or two that it is still early days and that we are still finding our way around after only a couple of years. The fact is that the French found their way around on day one; there was no problem with Mr. Lindstrand’s French competitor, which was certified immediately.
The French have found the transitional path; we have not. For that reason, I intend to press the new clause to a vote, although I am quite willing to accept that it is purely a protest in calling for a report.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 6.

NOES

Edward O'Hara: In accordance with precedent, I give my vote to the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 6.

NOES

Edward O'Hara: In accordance with precedent, I give my vote to the Noes.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9 - Aerodrome security strategy report

‘After section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) insert—
“40AAerodrome security strategy report
(1)It shall be the duty of all aerodrome authorities to prepare an annual security strategy report.
(2)A report produced under subsection (1) shall include details of the authority’s provision for—
(a)the safe transit of passengers, baggage and cargo,
(b)the safety of those working at the aerodrome, and
(c)the security of the aerodrome’s land and buildings.
(3)Aerodrome authorities shall produce a report pursuant to subsection (1) every twelve months, following the passing of this Act.
(4)Reports produced under this section shall be presented to the Secretary of State.
(5)The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe the content and form of reports produced under this section.”.’.—[Dr. Pugh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

John Pugh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I made the point inherent in the new clause on Second Reading, and although it is a probing amendment at this stage, it is slightly more than a bolt-on to the Bill. It is a very opportune amendment because of the genuine concerns that have been expressed about the expansion of airports and their security. I suspect that there will not be another civil aviation Bill for the next couple of years, so this might be our only opportunity to air those concerns properly.
The new clause would simply require all aerodrome authorities to produce at least an outline of a security plan, and to secure some form of Home Office ratification or support for it. I tabled it partly because of what I have learnt about airports in the past year or so.
To take the example of a provincial airport—I prefer not to name it at this stage, but it could be almost any provincial, non-designated airport—I  looked at who was involved in the security process. The carriers have their part to play. The airport owners have their part to play in the construction of the building and the people whom they hire for security. There are invariably immigration and customs staff; not in the same numbers as at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or Ringway, but none the less, there is always a cohort there. There are people responsible for the security of the airport, the departure lounges, and the public areas in and around the airport. There are often additional people also contracted to look after the car parks and security, and there are often further people who are responsible for removing those who are detained by customs and immigration, often also working under contract. Additionally, there may be around the place special branch travelling in and out with particular flights. So, security for most airports is a fairly multi-textured and complex thing, and is often difficult to co-ordinate successfully.
In the airport that I studied, there were genuine disputes about demarcation. A particular case occurred where people were asked to be removed by the firm responsible for removing them—they has been detained by immigration—but the people who were asked to do that were not contracted or cleared to go to the place where those people were found. As a result, there are all kinds of unnecessary complications.
In that airport, which I subjected to some examination, people were asked by the customs and immigration people to wait—in this case people who were suspected as being involved in people-trafficking—and they simply absconded. They absconded because the accommodation provided by the airport was simply not good enough. It did not provide adequate surveillance. The people had to be left, even though they had been detained for having inadequate documentation, because another flight was coming in that needed staffing and supervising and the customs and immigration staff were not capable of doing the two jobs. They could not monitor a night flight and properly detain and interrogate people who had been kept from a previous flight at the same time.
As a result, there was a history—not a major one, but a history nevertheless—of people absconding or being allowed to go and book into a hotel, and in some cases not reappearing at all, because of shortages of security staff at the right time and in the right place.
The airport that I am talking about is not an unsophisticated one. We know that beyond the existing regional airports, there will be others that wish to expand their international traffic. I am concerned that a lack of co-ordination may be a chink in the armour. It raises concerns about terrorism, drug smuggling and people smuggling.
I have had discussions with people in the Home Office responsible for airport security, and they clearly want to improve and enhance security at regional airports. I have had contacts and discussions with private security forces that supervise airport grounds. Again, they indicate that there is a clear need for enhancement, constant vigilance and looking at new  airports when they come on-stream to see that the security arrangements are adequate for the task. There is a general feeling that more power is required.
In the particular example that I looked at, a loophole that concerned me was that people who were responsible for car park security were themselves found to be without adequate reason to be in the country; not all of them, but a few individuals, who were prosecuted. Those real concerns about what is happening, to a minor extent, or what may happen in the future, led me to believe that we ought to get our house in order. We have an obligation to have a workable system. I tried to make the new clause as sharp as I could and not put too much detail into it.

Edward O'Hara: Order. It is now 10.25, at which time I should normally adjourn the Committee. However, in accordance with Standing Order No. 88 (2)(i), in my opinion the proceedings on this Bill can be brought to a conclusion within a quarter of an hour. I am therefore deferring the adjournment of the Committee accordingly.

John Pugh: I am grateful Mr. O’Hara. I would hate to be responsible for bringing everybody back this afternoon unnecessarily.
There is an obligation for us to have a workable system at every airport where there is international traffic. There is an obligation for airport authorities to satisfy the Home Office that such a workable system exists. Therefore, I have left within the new clause the capacity of the Home Office both to inspect an airport security scheme when presented with one and to add any necessary requirements that it considers necessary. That leaves the Home Office a wide element of discretion but I am happy to do so because security is a priority and highly confidential. One does not want to disclose this or for people to access it who have no business doing so.
Over a period of time, were this clause to be accepted, it would be possible for the Home Office to specify standards of equipment to be used for security purposes. There is much technological development at present that provides good ways of picking up all kinds of substances when brought in through an airport. The general burden of the new clause is for there to be an adequate system at every airport and for the Home Office to know that there is an adequate system. That seems a fairly minimal expectation. Although the Minister will probably not accept the new clause, I hope that she will consider how these requirements can be included in the scope of existing legislation.

Julian Brazier: In keeping with your remarks, Mr. O’Hara, I shall be extremely brief. I have no desire to keep the Committee here this afternoon. Obviously in tabling his new clause, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) does not seriously want people to publish a strategy report, which obviously would be a disaster. I am glad to see him nodding his head. The last thing we would want is to have the strategy in the public domain. He has made several good points and I will not go over the same ground again.
The Conservative party is concerned that although there are some visible, intrusive examples around Parliament, there is a lack of co-ordination on security across the board. We often see at Heathrow the kind of exercises that take place in America, but we never see them at the small regional airports, which are much more likely victims of terrorist attacks than the more obvious ones around London. The co-ordination between the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance service, the airport authorities, the local army and reserve forces and so on can only be got to work properly with proper exercises. There are problems with security and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising them.
May I say how much I have enjoyed serving on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara and that of Sir Nicholas Winterton? We have had a constructive series of exchanges and have been able to agree on a large number of things and disagree on a few others.

Karen Buck: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport for raising this important issue. He has raised it before on Adjournment debates and on Second Reading. There are never grounds for a moment’s complacency over any of these issues. I completely accept that point. I can assure him that the Government take security at all UK airports extremely seriously and keep it under constant review. A mature and robust national aviation security programme has been in place for many years.
The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are well addressed by several key mechanisms. Hon. Members will recall Sir John Wheeler’s report following his review of airport security in 2002. One of his key recommendations was for multi-agency threat and risk assessments at airports. The process aims to secure greater collaboration between all security stakeholders, the regulatory authorities and industry to produce a multi-agency threat and risk assessment for each airport. Most airports have now produced a risk register and are moving on to the action planning stage.
In addition, aerodromes have in place aviation security committees, comprising all security stakeholders at the aerodrome including representatives from industry, the police, Revenue and Customs, the immigration service and the transport security and contingencies directorate of my Department, which is the appropriate authority for aviation security in the UK.
A trafficking toolkit is available to operational immigration staff, which provides comprehensive information that staff use in their duties. The toolkit includes information such as why trafficking happens, victims’ perspectives, the challenges ahead and strategies for the future. The immigration service continues to gather intelligence and to monitor trends and, as part of that, will evaluate the systems in place for identifying and dealing with victims or potential victims of trafficking. I mention that, given that the issues of immigration and trafficking were part of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
I should also add that in the event of a perceived breach of security at an airport, the Secretary of State retains wide powers to give directions to airports and airlines under the Aviation Security Act 1982. He can also apply sanctions in the event of non-compliance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that a series of legal requirements and mechanisms is already in place for aerodromes to tackle terrorism. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the motion and new clause.
May I also say how much I have enjoyed serving under you, Mr. O’Hara, and Sir Nicholas? The proceedings have been good natured and well informed, particularly by concern for constituents. I have learned a great deal during the Committee proceedings, which is extremely helpful. As I said at our first sitting, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to the Bill as a paella. I believe that the Committee has added a subtle seasoning to deepen the flavour, but we have managed to resist the temptation to add any inappropriate ingredients. Having stretched the culinary analogy beyond breaking point, I shall sit down.

John Pugh: This has been a real feast of a debate, has it not?
I thank the Minister for a full and detailed response to my concerns. Although she is advocating a slightly more consensual model than what is in my new clause, it is probably more appropriate to pursue it as a strategy already embarked on, as long as the Home Office is properly mindful that it may need to use the reserved powers.
I thank you for chairing the Committee so effectively, Mr. O’Hara. I thank Sir Nicholas as well, and all other Members for their constructive and helpful comments. It is an non-contentious Bill, as we share many of its objectives. However, some issues remain to be sorted out, and I do not think that we have seen the last of the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward O'Hara: I thank the Committee for those gracious remarks, which I will pass on to Sir Nicholas. He did most of the work; my job has been simply to bring the Committee safely into landing. If we are to pursue analogies, perhaps I was the air traffic controller, and as such I thank the pilots and crews for their exemplary and professional behaviour.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o’clock.